- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3986 CRL.P No. 12365 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12365 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI M.ASHOK S/O A.MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SMT. ANURADHA W/O M.ASHOK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 15, 1st FLOOR 17th ‘G’ MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR 5th BLOCK, NEAR BASHAM CIRCLE BENGALURU – 10. NAME OF THE HUSBAND OF THE 2ND PETITIONER IS WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AS MUNISWAMY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR, M. B., ADVOCAE SRI CHAMARAJ M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY J.J.NAGAR POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3986 CRL.P No. 12365 of 2022 2. M.S.JITENDRA MEHTA S/O BASTIMAL MEHTA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO. 1, BENKI NAWAB STREET S.ROAD CROSS, S.P.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI H.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2021 IN PCR NO.6480/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU; QUASH THE FIR AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.129/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.506, 507, 120-B, 418, 406, 409, 420, 417, 426 OF IPC FILED BY THE JAGJIVANRAM POLICE VIDE ANNEXURE C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by respondent No.2 in Crime No.129/2022 of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station arising out of P.C.R.No.6480 of 2021, on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3986 CRL.P No. 12365 of 2022 Sections 506, 507, 120B, 418, 406, 409, 420, 417, 426 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 – complainant has filed the private complaint in P.C.R.No.6480/2021, against the petitioners alleging commission of offences as stated above. It is the specific contention of the complainant that the petitioners are the owners of the open site, bearing municipal No.4, situated at Binnypet, Kempapura Agrahara, BBMP, Old ward No.32, New ward No.121, measuring 8362 square feet. Petitioners agreed to sell an area measuring 2000 square feet in favour of respondent No.2 and an agreement to sell came to be executed by the petitioners on 21.05.2016, for consideration of Rs.1.02,00,000/-. An advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) was paid to the petitioners at the time of executing the agreement of sale. Even after the lapse of four years, petitioners were not ready to execute the sale deed. Respondent No.2 along with his friend met the petitioners - accused on 31.01.2021 and requested them to execute the sale deed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3986 CRL.P No. 12365 of 2022 3. It is stated that the petitioners have abused the complainant in filthy language and criminally intimidated to cause his death. It is stated that the petitioners are politically influential and therefore, no police complaint came to be registered. The complainant was receiving threatening calls and therefore, he filed a private complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 4. Heard Sri Santhosh Kumar M.B., learned counsel for Sri Chamaraj M., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and Sri H.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3986 CRL.P No. 12365 of 2022 to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" 6. My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S Respondent No.2 – the complainant has filed the private complaint in P.C.R.No.6480/2021, making specific allegations against both the petitioners. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation and accordingly, Crime No.129/2022 of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. Respondent No.2 has stated that when he met the petitioners on the date of the incident to enquire about execution of the sale deed, they have committed the offences as stated above. Even though the FIR came to be registered by respondent No.1 - police, no investigation was undertaken, as in the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court and got an order of stay. When respondent No.2 has made specific allegations, the truth or otherwise of such allegations is to be verified by the Investigating Officer by conducting investigation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3986 CRL.P No. 12365 of 2022 7. At this stage, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that, a false complaint is filed simply on the ground that sale deed is not executed after the agreement of sale, cannot be accepted. There is no basis to ignore or reject the allegations made by respondent No.2 at this stage. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2023 seeking vacating of the stay, stands disposed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13